Euro execs extend net zero timescales amid energy cost and supply crunch

Chief execs in key European countries are pushing back on net zero commitments to focus on their core business, in the face of a volatile energy market with rising costs and supply issues. These potentially worrying findings come from a survey of 400 CEOs at companies with a turnover above €200 million ($214 million) from …

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

'while net zero plans may have been delayed, they have not been derailed'

Please tell me no-one is that naive. Few people are going to openly admit that something that is legally mandated with moderate social pressure isn't actually happening.

Extending the net zero date *is* derailing.

This isn't going to happen without proper legislation, and legislation largely isn't going to happen because it harms company growth and is almost entirely a vote loser (unless it occurs at no cost to anyone. bwahahaha). The legislation mentioned in the article starts in 2026 and applies fully in 2029, but enforcing is down to member states, and fines appear to currently not be mentioned - so they'll be limited, and countries will indirectly court business by having minimal fines in their jurisdiction.

oh company, can you please possibly *start* to identify what you're doing that isn't environmentally friendly, but we probably won't actually do much to enforce you seriously targeting net zero. There might be a some piddly fines that companies will challenge legally or hide via an SME offshoot, that being less expensive. Wow, so strict.

I don't claim to be innocent here. Despite recycling, not having children, eating little meat, and not traveling a lot I'm unwilling to have restrictions on my life that would mandate punitive limits on travel or other areas. Unless you're in some very specific social groups and gaining everything you want and need from them, being a 'successful' person (job, partner, friends, activities, social signifiers) generally requires things that act against being kind to the planet.

[heyrick]

Re: 'while net zero plans may have been delayed, they have not been derailed'

I don't do things that are particularly environmentally unfriendly (no air travel, no holidays, no burning stupid amounts of power trying to find fake currencies, etc) but there's a limit that I'm prepared to accept.

Explain to me why I have to sort all sorts of plastics, while industry chucks it into a bin that goes into a big compactor, that goes to landfill?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't recycle. What I'm saying is that if anybody wants to be serious about the environment, stop hitting us little guys and go after the actual polluters first.

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

Re: 'while net zero plans may have been delayed, they have not been derailed'

My understanding was at least some of the plastics were being recycled, although a somewhat lower percentage than you'd expect, and it will depend on local recycling facilities.

We are past the point where it can all be forced on to the large companies, it has to be everyone, 'someone else should deal with it' is very human but isn't going to fly.

Also, whilst companies undoubtedly cause most of the pollution this is in part driven by demand and also by allowing consumers to purchase ridiculously subsidised products that outweigh their carbon footprint (i.e. all the stuff that is exported from China for minimal delivery cost. The fault can't all be assigned to China here, and handwaving that UK emissions are 'lower' because the product wasn't manufactured and shipped nationally)

[cyberdemon]

Sponsored by Aggreko

That Net Zero stuff is looking rather expensive and unreliable eh.

Who'd like to buy a big diesel genset in a box then?

[Andy The Hat]

It would be interesting to know how the average company's carbon footprint has been effectively increased as a direct result of being forced to upgrade perfectly good equipment (eg to satisfy Win11 hardware requirement) and/or by simply using search engines/office suites/os etc that now insist on "AI" involvement where there was none before?

[EricB123]

This Just Isn't Working

The fact that there isn't a website i can go to with an audit of where the plastics I "recycle" are even going is very frustrating to me. Probably in a landfill if we're lucky, or just dumped into the nearest waterway.

I conjecture that's why nobody's put something like tbat together, save a few municipalities that care to "waste" a small amount of funds to do so. Better to spend taxpayer money on a fleet of additional garbage trucks to haul the stuff to non-existent recycling centers instead. A good way to increase carbon and diesel soot output, though.

I've strayed a bit from carbon emissions by tech, but the same principles apply.

[Jellied Eel]

Manufacturing dichotomies

The legislation mentioned in the article starts in 2026 and applies fully in 2029, but enforcing is down to member states, and fines appear to currently not be mentioned - so they'll be limited, and countries will indirectly court business by having minimal fines in their jurisdiction.

That's how the EU works. They create diktats and expect member states to implement them. Which they do to a greater or lesser extent and play for competitive advantage. Then a few years after the dktats are issued, the EU can start its enforcement process and start fining the members. Then as you say, business have a legal duty to maximise shareholder value, not help virtue signal so if they can do that by moving their business outside the EU to countries with less of a regulatory burden, they'll so so. Which is why the EU's in the process of de-industrialising.

The Directive is also a bit pointless, ie expecting businesses to do carbon accounting for their entire supply chain. Suppose I buy widgets from vendor X and Y, who are based in the EU. They'll already have to produce some form of carbon accounting, so the EU could just hyperlink the two companies reports. I haven't looked at the Directive to see how onerous it is, but maybe it goes as far as having to account for every component in something I make. Car might have a thousand parts, does the car company have to account for grams of CO2e for every nut, bolt and meter of cable? Good business for 'service' industries who'll flog consultancy and 'help' with accounting, less good for businesses that actually manufacture stuff.

But the article also says..

The report also claims that internal debates are holding back investment into greener tech, with a quarter of respondents indicating that stakeholder support was the main challenge.

Which is the problem with greenwashing. Realistically there should be no debate. If 'greener tech' really saves money, or increases efficiency, then the investment case is a no brainer. Energy is the obvious example, eg if we invest X in new machines, we save Y on energy costs. If Y > X, raise the PO and make it so. If X > Y, the investment will cost money instead, which is the case with a lot of 'greener tech'. Or the company just realise it can save Y by moving the business to somewhere where the energy costs are lower and exits the EU entirely.

[Gordon 10]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

Fighting climate change is not virtue signalling.

Nor is requiring businesses to contribute.

The unadulterated profit motive leads to hell holes like America.

Govt literally exists to keep business in check for the benefit of their citizens, who btw provide a market for those businesses products.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

Fighting climate change is not virtue signalling.

Sure it is. King Canute did it. Those that ignore history etc. But climate change can't be quantified, let alone beaten. All it has done is sucked trillions away from productive businesses into bubbles. Again it is very simple. The Age of Sail gave way to the Age of Steam, once we'd figured out a way to generate more power. Now, the neo-luddites are dragging us back to depending on pre-Industrial era technology, despite knowing damn well the deficiencies.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

King Canute did it.

No, he didn't.

Canute was surrounded by sycophantic courtiers who claimed that he was all-powerful. He took them to the beach to show them that he could not stop the tide on command, because he was only a man and could not usurp the powers of God.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

Canute was surrounded by sycophantic courtiers who claimed that he was all-powerful.

Rather my point. Canute gave a simple demonstration that he could not fight the climate. Ed Millibrain hasn't go that memo yet, but is still surrounded by those sycophantic courtiers who're convincing him that for only a few trillion more, he can make the tides change, the winds blow..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

> Now, the neo-luddites are dragging us back to depending on pre-Industrial era technology

Neoluddite McStrawman says "Damn right I want to go back to those medieval-style technologies like offshore wind farms and solar cells!"

Well, too bad Mr Strawman- whether you like it or not, Mr Eel and his amazing, er, new technology of coal-burning is going to drag you *right* into the eighteenth century!

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

Well, too bad Mr Strawman- whether you like it or not, Mr Eel and his amazing, er, new technology of coal-burning is going to drag you *right* into the eighteenth century!

Who said anything about coal? I thought I was talking about nuclear. Then again, coal has a proven track record of producing energy when the wind isn't blowing. If the objective really was to reduce carbon emissions, replacing the UK's old coal stations with modern supercritical designs would have achieved those objectives. Instead, the neo-luddites blew them up to ensure they couldn't be used. With the notable exception of Drax, of course, which generates millions by burning trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

American trees, shipped across the ocean in diesel-powered ships :-(

[amajadedcynicaloldfart]

Re: Manufacturing dichotomies

Jellied Eel

You say the companies have a legal duty to maximise shareholder value. No they do not. In the U.K. at least.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/01/07/companies-do-not-have-a-legal-duty-to-maximise-profit-or-to-avoid-tax/

[Charlie Clark]

Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

As if that's a bad thing! Europe is a net importer of energy and the market has been getting more expensive. The only solution, and we've known this since the oil crises of the 1970s, is to reduce demand and find new, more reliable sources of supply.

But it's reasonable to question many of the policies which are, in effect as Andrew Orlowski said years ago, subsidies for the middle class. Think of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy and subsidies for EVs. Not a bad idea to get the market started but they have subsequently acted as a drag on innovation to reduce prices.

A "worst first" approach would have the twin benefits of reducing demand quickly, meaning more capacity is available for other uses that can't scale back easily, whilst benefitting those least able to make investments themselves.

[firefly]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

Europe's energy woes owe a lot to a series of EU directives beginning in 1996 that demanded that energy markets be 'liberalised', ostensibly to increase competition and benefit consumers. This worked for a while but at the same time sapped investment and now we're paying the price.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

This worked for a while but at the same time sapped investment and now we're paying the price.

Also disastrous decisions like Germany's energiewende policy, Merkel's decision to shut down nuclear because tsunamis and the EU's decision to sanction one of Germany's biggest trading partners. Which has lead to this-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3r046pzzo

Germany's governing coalition has collapsed after Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired a key minister and said he would call a vote of confidence in his government early next year.

The chancellor said he had no trust in Finance Minister Christian Lindner, who heads the pro-business Free Democrats and has been part of the coalition along with Scholz's Social Democrats and the Greens.

Which is a near-perfect storm. Germany de-industrialising, businesss closing or off-shoring due to high costs, and the EU facing the prospect of losing it's economic powerhouse and cash cow. And now Trump, with his threats of tariffs, walking away from Ukraine and dumping that problem on the EU, and extorting NATO members. Which kinda suits Macron's ambitions for an EU military, but the minor snag of who pays for it. Or produces all the equipment an EU military would need to create a viable alternative to NATO.

Like many things EU, it's too little, too late. Decades of defence cuts have come home to roost, along with negative economic policies like energy. Obvious solutions to cut costs and inflation would be things like a massive expansion in nuclear power generation, but NPPs take a decade or more to come online. Longer if they're French, but that's another looming problem. France happily sells electricity to the rest of the EU (and UK) when the wind isn't blowing, but their reactors are getting old. It would probably suit France to position itself as the EU's new powerhouse, but other member states might not agree with that cunning plan.

And it's all rather pointless given the fixation on 'Net Zero' overlooks the amount of new fossil fuel generation being built in China, India and all the countries that have looked at the economic impact of 'Green' policies on Germany, the UK and other countries that have gone full retard and decided their economies would do better with cheap, reliable energy instead.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

Let's ignore the "green" aspects for a while and concentrate on the issue of energy security: we have neither sufficient hydrocarbons nor Uranium in Europe to be able to rely on them.

The deals with Russia were made against the advice and requests of our allies and trading partners and the risks associated with the dependence have become only too obvious, though Uranium continues to be imported from Russia and is even processed in Germany…

Energy independence remains a strategic imperative, but the policies, especially those pushing for the electrification of everything and, therefore, a massive expansion of generation and grid capacity need revisiting.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

The deals with Russia were made against the advice and requests of our allies and trading partners and the risks associated with the dependence have become only too obvious, though Uranium continues to be imported from Russia and is even processed in Germany…

The main advice came from the US, who obviously wanted to replace Russia as an energy supplier. Uranium isn't really a problem given there are plenty of countries like Canada, Australia etc that can or could produce it. Energy security is also a bit of a myth given the dependency on China for a lot of components being used in 'renewables'.. Which is just one of those European challenges. We want steel, we're running out of iron ore and steel production is very energy intensive. New steel production has largely been using copious amounts of energy to recycle existing metal, which is expensive and not exactly sustainable.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

US LNG wasn't available at the time, due to US export restrictions, and it wasn't just the US but the Baltic states, Scandinavia and Poland and others. Not that I consider our new "friends" including Azerbaijan or Qatar much better or reliable, but they're less in a position to start a war directly with us, though Azerbaijan is close…

Energy security isn't a myth, but you do highlight some of the challenges associated with it and other parts industry. As I've previously said, I'm fairly open to continuing to ruin the Chinese economy by importing their solar cells below cost. But in Europe, solar electricity simply doesn't provide anything like as much energy as we need, particularly for heating. But, unfortunately, it's attracted the most government support. I'd prefer more extensive use of solarthermal for heating (yes, I know the problems are the same in the winter but the yields are always much higher) and more investment in doing stuff with the overproduction in the summer: adsorption-based cooling and Fischer-Tropf methylisation spring to mind. But there are alternatives and we should push harder for more efficient vehicles: the German car industry only has itself to blame for getting the government to water down emission rules so that it could continue to prioritise larger and heavier SUVs and having fewer lorries on the road.

As you noted yourself, lead times for nuclear power plants effectively rule them out. And that's before the politics of whether people want them and their waste.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

But there are alternatives and we should push harder for more efficient vehicles: the German car industry only has itself to blame for getting the government to water down emission rules

You can also argue the reverse, ie emission rules have lead to cars and other vehicles becoming less efficient. But then if you're the German Association of the Automotive Industry and have invented AdBlue/DEF, you can use regulatory capture to get that mandated and make bank. Especially when there are shortages due to a lack of urea, or ammonia, and then of course there's the energy required to produce that. Oh, and lots of plastic jugs to ship it in.

As you noted yourself, lead times for nuclear power plants effectively rule them out.

Not really, that's just allowed governments to kick the can down the road. The sooner we start building, the sooner they'd have been operational. Plus there are other pros/cons. So windmills don't exactly create many 'green jobs', reactor construction does. Especially the full-sized ones, but SMRs would also create plenty of jobs in construction. Downside is if several EU members (and UK) all decide to start nuclear construction now, there'll be a lot of demand for those skills and not enough people.

A lot of people don't want windmills, massive solar or battery farms either, but the Green blob has spent a lot of time & money demonising nuclear and lobbying for 'renewables'. Plus regulatory or legislative changes that remove locals ability to object. Same principles could be applied to nuclear, which would also save a lot of time and money dealing with the inevitable objections. Sadly many Greens are still following the socioeconomic principles laid down in "Industrial Society and Its Future", even though those are helping lead to Germany and other European nation's industrial collapse. But that's probably their plan because it makes no sense otherwise.

[blackcat]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

"nor Uranium in Europe to be able to rely on them"

Fresh uranium, no. Second hand uranium, yes.

Sellafield has some 80,000 tons of radioactive waste of which a large % is spent fuel. Rather than trying to find somewhere to hide it we should make use of it. Even a spent fuel rod is over 90% usable fuel.

Other nuclear countries have similar as very few recycle fuel.

[Chinamissing]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

Then throw in the relative size of our economy, 'carbon outputs' and general environmental impact and you realise that unless the USA, China, India and probably one or two others do something, everything we do will move the world's health not a single % point. I am all for recycling and use public transport and do take holidays abroad, no shame there. But the constant b*llocks spewed by governments of all hue about being 'a world leader in green tech and showing the way to decarbonisation' is tiring. All it really means is we lose businesses, increase costs, cover the RnD costs of the rest of the world who watch what happens to us and even if we hit our goal, we will not have helped the world move significantly enough but will have ensured a broken economy and no 'green jobs' of any significant number. It is depressing and now that Trump is in power, we truly are in trouble. Will be interesting to see what the reaction is to US states starting to sue the UK over our ESG policies in the USA. Combine this with wars, Labour's incredible budget 1 (read the BoE amongst others) and life is not looking overly chirpy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

Decarbonisation efforts have nothing to do with the UK economy being crap. Brexit is a bigger issue, and apparently you electricity pricing is idiotic (*all* of the used energy is priced at what the most expensive leccy included costs? WTAF?), having badly insulated housing forces higher use of that stupidly priced leccy...

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

Decarbonisation efforts have nothing to do with the UK economy being crap. Brexit is a bigger issue,

It has very little to do with Brexit, and everything to do with our 'Climate Change Act' and 'Net Zero' policies..

and apparently you electricity pricing is idiotic (*all* of the used energy is priced at what the most expensive leccy included costs? WTAF?)

Plus a few billion in other assorted subsidies, which are all set to increase. If you're on the right side of the equation, inflation is great! Supply contracts are indexed by RPI, so the higher the inflation rate, the more wind farmers get paid for their electricity. This lead to amusing situations like 'fagflation' where increases in tobacco duty (+10% this budget) made electricity more expensive. Our government has 'fixed' that one by simply excluding tobacco from RPI. When it suits them. The rest of our pricing is due to the way our useful idiots rigged the market, and sadly for the UK, the chief architect, one Ed Millibrain is back in charge of UK energy policy. His solution to windmills not producing power when there's no wind?

https://gridwatch.co.uk/wind

Month to date: minimum: 0.602 GW maximum: 7.504 GW average: 2.967 GW

Build more windmills! And solar has been even worse given the UK's been very overcast and had a distinct lack of sunlight for the last few weeks.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Increased demand is being held back by rising energy costs…

As usual, the issue isn't really liberalisation but the associated regulation (or lack thereof): there were no incentives to reduce demand and increase efficiency and competition authorities allowed a wage of mergers that left most countries with cartels with a vested interest in the status quo (though other pop rock groups were available!).

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not worried about my carbon footprint as I drive everywhere.

Let's be honest here. We aren't going to do shit for the environment while we have wars. Wars aren't going to go away and the military complexes of the world are going to destroy the planet one way or another.

I don't want it to be this way but what can I actually do? I already recycle everything I can. I very rarely use my car opting for public transport where I can. I even reclaim old jazz mags from bushes. We are now at the point where something drastic needs to happen but who will make that first step?

[Gordon 10]

And yet the current wars are minor in the grand scheme of things... certainly when put against the emissions of an entire G7 country.

Methinks you are making excuses.....

In spite of all the negativity we are making great strides in Carbon reduction and we've likely already passed peak oil production.

[Caver_Dave]

UK green energy

I am sitting in the middle of the UK surrounded by Wind Turbines and have a roof covered in Solar Panels.

For over a week the UK has been sitting under high pressure - as is often the case during to colder months.

If I go up to the local hill I can see 30 turbines not moving is there is no wind and it's so clouding and grey that my solar has produced anything for days.

Despite all the good ideas, we still need some alternative for weather like this.

Coat, because it's cold in the house at the moment as my heating oil has run out! and at least the logo colour is green.

[Jonjonz]

so accordin to the incoming administration, some shock and belt tightening is in order as US policy shifts to penalizing efforts on net zero and rewarding energy management soley of cost. Guess who can afford more power than you, and be happy getting priced out of energy, no imposed restrictions, your free to freeze if you can't out bid the oligarchs.

[pdh]

The real inconvenient truth

Actually reducing atmospheric CO2 will require two things: a significant decline in the standard of living in developing countries (comparable to the sacrifices that were made on the home front in World War 2), and less developed countries remaining significantly less developed. It's impossible for me to believe that we can reduce CO2 levels and simultaneously provide 8 billion people with the lifestyle that Europe and the U.S. enjoy today.

[Caver_Dave]

Re: The real inconvenient truth

Turkmenistan has had a huge methane fire since 1971 and has done nothing about it. [https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/geology/gates-of-hell-turkmenistans-methane-fueled-fire-pit-that-has-been-burning-since-1971]

Since Nordstream was turned off Russia has been burning off all that gas as it cannot use it. [https://www.pipeline-journal.net/news/russia-flaring-around-434-mcmd-gas-normally-bound-nord-stream-1]

Compared with just these two of many instances, how much difference can normal people, or even large industries make?

Flame icon for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The real inconvenient truth

That Turkmenistan fire is small in the grand scheme of things, AND it's better for it to burn than leak away as methane. Also, that fire has nothing to do with Nordstream.

[codejunky]

Re: The real inconvenient truth

@pdh

"Actually reducing atmospheric CO2 will require two things: a significant decline in the standard of living in developing countries"

Thats a terrible idea. Look at the terrible impact of bad investment and forcing of unreliables which has only been possible due to our standard of living being high enough to fund such insanity. Yet on a positive note is why advancements such as LED lighting could be developed and cleaner energy production. Going backwards would be much worse for the environment.

"and less developed countries remaining significantly less developed"

Less developed countries being significantly less developed is polluting in itself. The actual poor being terrible for the environment as their priority is survival, not co2 output.

"It's impossible for me to believe that we can reduce CO2 levels and simultaneously provide 8 billion people with the lifestyle that Europe and the U.S. enjoy today."

Assuming we believe the MMCC co2 theory stuff at the extreme ends the lifestyles of everyone on earth needs to improve, more so for the less developed.

[cyberdemon]

Re: The real inconvenient truth

Agreed. But what I predict is going to happen is something along the lines of the plots of Moonraker / Fallout.

Certain very-rich people (i.e. definitely Zuck, but likely also Musk, Bezos, the usual suspects) have already spent Billions on building their own personal nuclear bunkers (presumably pre-filled with their own personal staff / perfect human seedbanks). These same people are in a position to manipulate world politics towards WWIII, in which all 7 billion of us bar the chosen few will perish. Then they and/or their offspring will emerge a few years later, on their perfect tropical island, which may or may not be long-dead and covered in radioactive ash (no idea how they might plan to deal with that to be fair - it could end up much more Fallout than Moonraker)

[IGotOut]

Want to stop climate change?

Stop buying shit you don't need!

It's really is that simple.

Over buying food you throw away.

Replacing the phone every time a new one comes out.

Buying a huge TV, when in reality you'll still see the same size screen because you end up sitting further away.

Buy second hand and use it until it falls apart or becomes so degraded as to become unusable.

If we buy less shit, the factories will produce less shit.

End of.